U.S. Court of Federal Claims
In a 2022 U.S. Court of Federal Claims opin- ion in Insight Public Sector, Inc. v. United States , the court determined that the Navy conducted an adequate PIA investi- gation “consistent with the [court’s] arbitrary and capricious standard of review.” Significantly, the agency reviewed contemporaneous e-mail communications of the vendor that allegedly received information about the plaintiff’s proposal, interviewed vendor employees, and obtained declarations from both multiple ven- dor and Navy personnel. Of note, the court determined that the agency had significant discretion when de- termining which agency employees were tasked to participate in the PIA investigation. Similarly, in a 2025 U.S. Court of Federal Claims opinion in Marathon Targets, Inc. v. United States , the court noted with ap- proval the Marine Corps decision to appoint an independent CO to con- duct the PIA investigation following an inadvertent disclosure of sensi- tive procurement information by the original CO. The court found adequate a “thorough 31-page report” that in- cluded a “comprehensive and bal- anced assessment” of the relevant issues with sufficient evidence sup- porting the CO’s report. Conclusion When made aware of a potential or actual PIA violation during the pre-award phase of a procurement, the CO is obligated to inquire into the
In contrast to the role of law enforcement, the CO is not obliged to determine whether an actual PIA violation has occurred with a view toward holding the violator criminally responsible. Rather, the CO must make a timely determination if the procurement has been impacted by a PIA violation.
the inadequacy of a PIA investigation. GAO did sustain a protest in one case that involved a GAO determination that the agency’s PIA inquiry was too limited in scope. In the 2017 GAO Decision in the matter of Dell Services Federal Govern- ment, Inc . , a competing vendor noti- fied the CO that it had received two prior Dell proposals from a teaming partner’s employee. The CO notified incumbent contractor Dell, and the contractor posited that a potential PIA violation existed. The CO de- termined that no agency employees were involved in the improper dis- closure but was unable to determine how the employee obtained the two proposals. The CO referred the mat- ter to the OIG and prepared a “Pro- curement Impact Determination”
that there was no adverse impact on the procurement. The relevant agency personnel concurred. The GAO sustained Dell’s subse- quent protest. The GAO noted that the agency confined its investigation “entirely to a comparison of the differ- ences between how the agency pre- viously satisfied its IT requirements versus how it will meet those require- ments going forward.” The agency did not consider the potential competitive advantage of having access to Dell’s labor rates and staffing strategies in the two earlier proposals. In addition, GAO said that the agency did not ade- quately investigate the circumstances surrounding the vendor’s receipt of Dell’s proposals.
November-December 2025 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION | 47
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker